Technology

Claude or Codex for vibe coding in 2026: a practical comparison without hype

A practical comparison of Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs GPT-5.3-Codex for vibe coding in 2026: where each model is stronger, what fresh benchmarks actually show, how pricing changes the decision, and which workflow each model fits best.

28 Feb 2026· 13 min read

Get a short AI coding stack audit

Comparison of Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GPT-5.3-Codex for vibe coding

Short version: the leader changes depending on the vibe coding workflow

As of February 27, 2026, the practical picture looks like this.

• If you need a terminal-first agent that executes for a long time and you actively steer it in the loop, GPT-5.3-Codex currently looks very strong. OpenAI positions it as its strongest agentic coding model and claims new highs on SWE-Bench Pro and Terminal-Bench 2.0. [1][2][3]
• If you need a stable daily coding copilot with good performance-to-cost and large context for long sessions, Claude Sonnet 4.6 is a very strong candidate. [4][5]
• On independent leaderboards, GPT-5.3-Codex is easier to find today than Sonnet 4.6. That does not prove Sonnet is worse. It shows that public eval pools are still catching up with the latest releases. [6][7]

What we mean by vibe coding in a real engineering team

In this article, vibe coding means a fast loop of idea -> code -> run -> feedback, often without heavy upfront design. The model needs to hold context well, edit existing code reliably, and keep the pace intact.

That is why we do not look at one benchmark score only. More important signals are how many iterations it takes to reach an acceptable result, how many manual fixes are needed after the model, and what one accepted change actually costs.

Exact technical data for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GPT-5.3-Codex

Below is not a summary but a set of concrete numbers from official model pages and public benchmark announcements as of February 27, 2026.

Model	Release	Context window	Max output	Input	Cached input	Output	Public benchmark signal
Claude Sonnet 4.6	2026-02-17	1M tokens beta in API	Not publicly specified	$3 / 1M	Not publicly specified	$15 / 1M	80.2% SWE-bench Verified with prompt modification, 70% user preference vs Sonnet 4.5, 59% vs Opus 4.5 [4][5]
GPT-5.3-Codex	2026-02-05	400k	128k	$1.75 / 1M	$0.175 / 1M	$14 / 1M	56.8% SWE-Bench Pro (Public), 77.3% Terminal-Bench 2.0, 64.7% OSWorld-Verified, and +25% speed vs GPT-5.2-Codex [1][2][3]

For Claude Sonnet 4.6, Anthropic publicly gives a 1M context figure and pricing, but does not expose a separate max output or cached input line as explicitly as OpenAI does for GPT-5.3-Codex. That is also part of the real comparison: OpenAI currently ships a more detailed technical model card. [2][5]

The critical nuance is that Anthropic and OpenAI emphasize different benchmark surfaces. Sonnet 4.6 is publicly framed through SWE-bench Verified and human preference, while GPT-5.3-Codex is framed through terminal-agent execution and SWE-Bench Pro. That is not the same measurement axis, so the decision should be made by workflow, not by one row in a chart.

What public benchmarks show in practice

We keep Terminal-Bench, SWE-ReBench, and Aider in this article because they measure three different things: agent execution in the terminal, repo-level software engineering on decontaminated tasks, and code editing discipline without human help. Together this is much closer to real vibe coding than a single vendor benchmark.

Terminal-Bench 2.0

This benchmark checks whether an agent can actually complete a terminal workflow in a sandbox: receive a task, operate in shell, run commands, and finish with an automatic test verification. This is exactly the kind of setup where the difference between writes code well and gets the task done becomes visible. [6][9]

Agent + model	Accuracy	What it means in practice
Droid + GPT-5.3-Codex	77.3% ± 2.2	Strongest public result in a terminal-first loop at the time of review
Simple Codex + GPT-5.3-Codex	75.1% ± 2.4	Strong result even in a more productized Codex setup
CodeBrain-1 + GPT-5.3-Codex	70.3% ± 2.6	Confirms the strength is not tied to one single agent shell
Terminus-KIRA + Claude Opus 4.6	74.7% ± 2.6	Strongest Anthropic-side result in this public slice
Judy + Claude Opus 4.6	71.9% ± 2.7	Claude is strong here too, but still below the top Codex rows
Droid + Claude Opus 4.6	69.9% ± 2.5	Good execution score, but below the top Codex entry
Terminus 2 + GPT-5.3-Codex	64.7% ± 2.7	Even a benchmark-owned baseline agent with Codex stays strong

Important nuance: the live leaderboard currently does not contain a Claude Sonnet 4.6 row. So the honest comparison is this: GPT-5.3-Codex already has strong public results across several agent setups, while the Anthropic-side terminal benchmark evidence currently shows Claude Opus 4.6 rather than Sonnet 4.6. For terminal-heavy work, that is still a strong point in Codex's favor, just not a fabricated Sonnet 4.6 vs Codex 5.3 one-to-one. [6]

SWE-ReBench

This is one of the most useful engineering benchmarks right now because it does not just count problems solved. It also reports Pass@5, cost per problem, tokens per problem, and cached tokens. It also works with a current time-bounded task set and flags potentially contaminated evaluations, so it is better protected against the the model has already seen these tasks problem. [7]

Model	Resolved rate	Pass@5	Cost / problem	Tokens / problem	Cached tokens
Claude Code	62.1%	74.5%	$1.29	1,971,650	92.3%
gpt-5.2-2025-12-11-medium	61.3%	74.5%	$0.47	884,110	84.3%
Claude Sonnet 4.5	60.9%	70.2%	$0.88	1,780,611	96.2%
Claude Opus 4.5	60.4%	70.2%	$1.03	1,191,384	94.9%
gpt-5.1-codex-max	58.3%	72.3%	$0.59	1,282,375	76.0%

The key point here is not to pretend this is already a latest-vs-latest comparison. On the public SWE-ReBench leaderboard at the time of this article, there are no stable rows yet for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GPT-5.3-Codex specifically. So the correct conclusion is different: SWE-ReBench currently confirms that Anthropic's stack and newer OpenAI coding models are very close on repo-level tasks, but for an exact latest-vs-latest comparison we still need the live rows to appear. [7]

Why this matters for vibe coding: if Terminal-Bench is more about execution, then SWE-ReBench is better at showing how a model behaves on real repository tasks with a longer sequence of edits, checks, and retries. For teams that spend more time changing live code in large repos than running shell-heavy workflows, this signal is often more important.

Aider leaderboard

Aider has a different focus. It tests how well a model edits code without human help, whether it follows the required edit format, and how often it returns a valid patch. In the polyglot set, that means 225 Exercism tasks across C++, Go, Java, JavaScript, Python, and Rust. [8]

What Aider measures	Why it matters in this article
Percent correct	How often the model actually completes the code-edit task
Correct edit format	How reliably the model returns a patch in the right format
Cost	What that editing discipline costs in practice
Edit format	Whether the model works better with diff, whole, or another format

For this article, Aider is a supporting benchmark rather than a primary one, because its leaderboard does not yet contain a clean Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs GPT-5.3-Codex head-to-head at the time of review. But it is still useful as a reminder: for vibe coding, it is not enough that a model understands code. It also needs to return changes in a format your toolchain can apply reliably. [8]

Practical conclusion: if your workflow is built around shell, tests, and long execution loops, the best public signal right now favors GPT-5.3-Codex. If your workday looks more like long repository sessions, complex edits, architectural changes, and large context, the case for Claude is stronger, but specifically for Sonnet 4.6 some independent live rows are still catching up.

Recommended screenshot: the top part of the Terminal-Bench 2.0 leaderboard with Droid + GPT-5.3-Codex, Simple Codex + GPT-5.3-Codex, and the closest Claude entries. [6]

Recommended screenshot: a SWE-ReBench table slice with current top rows for Claude Code, Sonnet 4.5, and OpenAI coding models. [7]

Pros and cons without marketing noise

This is not a universal ranking. It is a practical map of strengths and weaknesses for an engineering team.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 - pros

1M context in API beta gives a different level of freedom for large codebases, technical documentation, and long sessions without aggressive context compression. On Anthropic's own page, the model also shows a strong preference signal: 70% of users preferred it over Sonnet 4.5, and 59% preferred it over Opus 4.5. For daily pair coding, that is a serious argument. [4][5]

Claude Sonnet 4.6 - cons

The weakness of Sonnet 4.6 is not the marketing signal. It is the smaller amount of fresh independent terminal-first benchmark coverage specifically for this model. If your team builds around long agent execution in CLI, you currently do not get the same clean public proof that GPT-5.3-Codex already has. [6][8]

GPT-5.3-Codex - pros

Codex 5.3 is strongest where it matters operationally: public terminal-agent results, a dedicated model line for coding workflows, a 400k context window, and a clear OpenAI push around interactive steering in the Codex app and API. If your team works through execution loops, shell commands, patching, and iterative test-fix cycles, this is a very strong stack. [1][2][3][6]

GPT-5.3-Codex - cons

Despite strong benchmark signals, Codex 5.3 has a shorter context window than Sonnet 4.6, and in long knowledge-heavy sessions that starts to matter faster. On top of that, some of its strongest public numbers are closely tied to OpenAI-specific execution setups, so teams should still verify results with an internal eval outside that environment. [1][2][6]

What the decision looks like in a real workflow

After benchmark numbers, the choice usually collapses into three practical scenarios.

• Choose GPT-5.3-Codex if your main mode is a terminal-first agent, long execution chains, test-fix loops, shell automation, and constant manual steering. That is where the model currently has the best public evidence. [1][2][6]
• Choose Claude Sonnet 4.6 if your daily work is pair coding, large code context, architecture-heavy edits, and long stable sessions at a reasonable price. Sonnet 4.6 looks more natural in that mode. [4][5][7]
• Choose a hybrid setup if your team already works in two modes: Claude for long-form reasoning, reading code, and broad refactors, and Codex for execution-heavy slices where the main goal is to move quickly through edit -> run -> fix -> verify.

A minimal internal benchmark on 20 real tasks

If you are choosing a model for a quarter or for a whole team, the best move is not to argue over Twitter threads or vendor demos, but to run both models on your own task set.

type ModelId = "claude-sonnet-4-6" | "gpt-5.3-codex";

type Task = {
  id: string;
  prompt: string;
  testCommand: string;
};

type Result = {
  model: ModelId;
  taskId: string;
  passed: boolean;
  elapsedMs: number;
  inputTokens: number;
  outputTokens: number;
  manualFixes: number;
};

async function runTask(model: ModelId, task: Task): Promise<Result> {
  const t0 = Date.now();

  // 1) send prompt + repo context to model
  // 2) apply patch in sandbox branch
  // 3) run testCommand
  // 4) collect token usage from provider response

  return {
    model,
    taskId: task.id,
    passed: true,
    elapsedMs: Date.now() - t0,
    inputTokens: 12000,
    outputTokens: 1800,
    manualFixes: 1,
  };
}

function score(results: Result[]) {
  const n = results.length;
  const passRate = results.filter((r) => r.passed).length / n;
  const avgMs = results.reduce((s, r) => s + r.elapsedMs, 0) / n;
  const avgFixes = results.reduce((s, r) => s + r.manualFixes, 0) / n;

  return { passRate, avgMs, avgFixes };
}

The two metrics worth putting into a final decision table are pass rate and cost per accepted change. If Codex solves more tasks but costs more inside your actual loop, that needs to be visible in numbers. If Claude is cheaper but needs more manual fixes, that is also not a real win. It is hidden cost.

FAQ

If I want maximum terminal flow, what should I test first?

Start with GPT-5.3-Codex in your real terminal workflow and compare it against a Sonnet-based setup on the same task set. The main metric is not your impression. It is the share of accepted changes without manual repair.

Is there already a fair direct benchmark for Sonnet 4.6 vs GPT-5.3-Codex?

At the time of this article, fully symmetric independent head-to-head evidence is still limited. The right path is a fast internal eval on your own stack, plus public leaderboards as orientation.

Is Claude more expensive than Codex for coding tasks?

In public API pricing, Sonnet 4.6 input is higher and output is close to GPT-5.3-Codex. But the final economics depend on caching, session length, and how many times tasks need to be rerun.

Which one is better for long-context sessions?

Based on public specifications, Sonnet 4.6 offers 1M context in API beta. If your workflow truly hits context limits, that can be a substantial advantage.

Is it normal to use two models in parallel?

Yes. In 2026 that is often the most effective strategy: one model for daily pace, another for complex agentic tasks. The main thing is to define a clear policy for when each one is used.

Sources

Primary and specialist sources verified on February 27, 2026.

Want to choose the model without making a quarter-long mistake

In 7 to 10 days, it is realistic to build a small evaluation system around your own workflow and make an evidence-based model decision.

The result is less chaos in the coding loop, more stable team speed, and more predictable operating cost.

Discuss AI coding workflow Browse more technical articles